Those who wish to enter this republic should do so lawfully. If not, they suffer the consequences, harsh as those consequences may be.

It gets rather old listening to the hypocritical rhetoric from anti-constitutionalists. Their values and principles are situational based instead of based firmly on God's law, the Constitution, and legislation duly passed according to the Constitution. Anti-constitutionalists are the epitome of the old saying, "If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything."

Mind you, CNN did not talk to any illegal alien invader and only to these two attorneys who provided the information. According to CNN, illegal alien invader Oman Rodriguez-Avila was separated from his eight-year-old daughter when he was caught with others illegally crossing the US border. Rodriguez-Avila begged the judge for a light sentence because his daughter "was here." The judge sentenced Rodriguez-Avila to 15 days in jail because he "was previously convicted for the same misdemeanor offense in 2012 and deported."

take our poll - story continues below

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?

Will you vote for President Trump in 2020 if he can’t get the wall built?*

Yes.

No.

Yes, it's the Democrats fault.

Email*

Phone

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Stories surfaced during the Hussein Soetoro administration, which turned out to be true, that many adults were crossing the southern US border illegally with children, who were not their own, in tow in order to be shown leniency and allowed to enter the united States. One need not think this has stopped because Hussein Soetoro is no longer in office. However, with the Trump administration enforcing the immigration laws of this republic, anti-constitutionalists and news organizations, such as CNN, are pulling on the heartstrings of citizens to overlook those breaking the law.

The administration said it seeks to reunite the families as much as possible after court proceedings, but it puts the onus largely on the parents to locate their children within government custody and seek their return.

"So, if you cross the border unlawfully, even a first offense, we're going to prosecute you," Sessions told a gathering of the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. "If you're smuggling a child, we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally." [Emphasis mine.]

This last statement by Sessions is pivotal. If you have committed a crime and are prosecuted and found guilty, you are separated from your children upon arrest. It is the same for citizens of this republic. Why should illegal alien invaders be treated differently under the law? If anti-constitutionalists claim it is "inhumane" to separate children from "parents" if the parent is an illegal alien invader who violated immigration law; then, it is "inhumane" to separate children from parents if the parent is a citizen and violated the law. It is the natural conclusion to their stance.

Yet, anti-constitutionalists have little conscience when it comes to the matters of morality and the law. Murder is against the law – God's as well as man's. Still, anti-constitutionalists push to allow women to choose to murder their unborn babies and allow doctors to perform the procedure that murders the baby. Anti-constitutionalists have little problem separating a parent from a child when a citizen violates the law, is found guilty, and placed in prison. Their sense of morality is situational, based on incident and emotion, instead of rooted in God's word and law.

Of course, Sessions took the opportunity to cite Romans 13 in part, when arguing for the current policy. Session stated Romans 13 instructs "Christians to 'obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." However, that is not exactly what Romans 13 states.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

According to God's Word, Christians are to obey the laws of government only when government is the minister of God to us for good – government is not a terror to good works, but to evil. When government becomes a terror to good works, Christians are not to obey. Therefore, government, ordained of God, is a "revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" or those who violate just and righteous laws. One does not blindly obey the laws of man when those laws are contradictory to God's laws. And, Christians are not to follow the edicts of government when those edicts punish good works and not evil. Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to stay away from quoting God's Word if he can't get it right.

One of the self-evident truths cited by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence is governments are instituted among men, deriving their power from the consent of the government to secure God-given individual unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Immigration law is within the enumerated powers of the Congress and protects our lives through secure borders. Without those laws, anyone and everyone could enter this republic unfettered, as was seen during the Hussein Soetoro administration, to do harm to citizens – commit murder, robbery, burglary, rape, kidnapping, etc. Moreover, foreign entities intent on insurrection could enter as well.

Immigration laws are just and righteous and of good works to protect the citizenry. The laws are not evil or unjust. However, it is not Christians and constitutionalists who have an issue with the immigration laws. It is anti-constitutionalists or those domestic enemies of the republic.

Murder is against God's law and the law of man. Yet, anti-constitutionalists support the murder of babies in the womb, against the laws of God and man. They support unlawful sanctuary cities and States providing safe harbor to illegal alien invaders who commit additional crimes of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, etc., while advocating for citizens who commit the same crimes to be held accountable to the law. Murder is acceptable to them when committed by a mother and doctor against the unborn and when an illegal alien invader does it; but, it is a crime when someone not in those categories commits the same. When a citizen parent commits a crime or is accused of harming their own children, anti-constitutionalists have little problem separating children from parents. However, let an illegal alien invader endanger their child by trekking thousands of miles to cross the US southern border illegally and it is "inhumane" to separate a child from the parent or someone pretending to be a parent.

Anti-constitutionalists stand for nothing. The situation determines their support for an issue and their emotions rule, not reason and rationality. They fiercely advocate for Christian bakers to be forced by government to bake a cake to celebrate an unnatural union; yet, they contradict themselves when advocating for the right of a black baker to be free from government influence to be forced to bake a cake for a KKK event. Moreover, they recognize the contradiction, but still cling to their situational justice. Situational justice is the tool of dictators, tyrants, despots, and unjust, unrighteous monarchs. It has no place in a free constitutional republic.

So, while anti-constitutionalists blather on about the inhumanity of separating children from parents or alleged parents crossing the US border illegally, the solution is very simple and right in front of them. Those who wish to enter this republic should do so lawfully. If not, they suffer the consequences, harsh as those consequences may be. But, they won't see it because they go where the wind of emotion blows. In their mind, situational justice is preferable to equal application of the law concerning themselves and favored individuals; everyone not of their mindset should be held accountable to the law.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

About the AuthorSuzanne Hamner

Suzanne Hamner (pen name) is a registered nurse, grandmother of 4, and a political independent residing in the state of Georgia, who is trying to mobilize the Christian community in her area to stand up and speak out against tyrannical government, invasion by totalitarian political systems masquerading as religion and get back to the basics of education.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.